Token Identity

This is a chapter of the planned monograph "Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Theories of Gravity", co-authored by Nick Huggett and Christian Wüthrich and under contract with Oxford University Press. (More information at www<dot>beyondspacetime<dot>net.) This chapter introduces the problem of emergence of spacetime in quantum gravity. It introduces the main philosophical challenge to spacetime emergence and sketches our preferred solution to it.

Three claims are widely held and individually plausible, but jointly inconsistent: (1) Negative actions (intentional omissions, refrainments, etc.) are genuine actions; (2) All actions are events; (3) Some, and perhaps all, negative actions aren't events, but absences thereof (when I omit to raise my arm, no omission-event occurs; what happens is just that no arm-raising occurs). Drawing on resources from metaphysics and the philosophy of language, I argue that (3) is false. Negative actions are events, just as ordinary actions are. (...) Moreover, each token negative action is identical to a token positive event, so we can adopt this realist view of negative actions without adding metaphysically negative entities (absences, negative states of affairs) to our ontology. (shrink)

The 'token' for 'tokenization' explains fungible and non-fungible reality (tokenization).

The meme is a tokenization of Nature. Biomemetics is the integration of Biomimetics and Memetics.

Zero and one. Circumference and diameter. Intelligent anarchy. Explanation for abstraction (as a noun) (as a verb).

Cryptocurrency is just the tip of a never-melting iceberg…because everything in Nature is connected to everything else by an always-conserved (and uber-simple) circle. Giving us, finally, an explanation (and, technically, a use-case, and proof) for a 'self.'.

Solving Navier-Stokes and integrating it with Bose-Einstein. Moving beyond ‘mathematics’ and ‘physics.’ And, philosophy. Integrating 'point' 'line' 'circle.' (Euclid with 'reality.').

Zero and one are the circumference and diameter of an always-conserved circle. Explaining everything in philosophy, physics, and psychology. This produces a completely tokenized 'reality' with important implications for governmental and financial systems. As is, already, happening, in the exploding 'world' of NFT ('crypto' 'currency' in general) based on the statement and the diagram, and the notion of identity (knowledge as power).

Biomimetics (biomimicry) (biomemetics) proves the conservation of a circle is responsible for the tokenization of Nature (and, therefore, for (relative) identity in general).

The cosmological microprocessor: four mini-satellites launched to communicate as an invisible token. All networks: one zero, one one. (All zeroes. One one.) Explains the (tokenized) notion of 'self.'.

Pi in mathematics is mind in Nature, explaining the tokenization of 'reality.'.

Zero and one are the circumference and diameter of an always-conserved circle. Explaining everything in philosophy, physics, and psychology. This produces a completely tokenized 'reality' with important implications for governmental and financial systems. As is, already, happening, in the exploding 'world' of NFT ('crypto' 'currency' in general) based on the statement and the diagram, and the notion of identity (knowledge as power).

The integration of biomimetics and memetics produces non-fungible tokens. Proving the Conservation of a Circle is the core, and, thus the only, dynamic in Nature, resulting in the tokenization of reality. Explaining the notion of 'self.' Across all disciplines.

Everything in Nature is, technically, a non-fungible token for 'self.' Explaining the meaning of the word 'self' across all disciplines. Introduces and explains Biomemetics (neologism for the technological realization of 'self').

All of us are tokenizations in our own reality. This is because, technically (as we all know), there is no such thing as (what we're used to calling) 'reality.'.

The tokenization of zero and one exposes the circular-linear relationship embedded within Nature. Also known, surreptitiously, and superpositionally, as NFT.

Nature tokenizes an always-present circle (the circular-linear relationship) (one zero-one one) (circumference and diameter) (literally and figuratively). Meaning, everything we 'see' in Nature is a token for a circle. Meaning, technology, specifically crypto-technology, will eventually take over what we currently 'know' as 'government.' (Authority in general.) For the intelligent anarchist in all of us.

Technology is answering our deepest questions about ‘reality.’ This is because Nature continually tokenizes an underlying, omnipresent, continually conserved, circular-linear relationship. Thus, zero and one (modern) is yin and yang (ancient) tying modern and ancient ideas about 'reality' together, and proving tokenization produces a cryptic 'reality.' Explaining science, and the 'search' for answers (perpetually).

Zero and one (modern) are yin and yang (ancient), circumference and diameter (literally and figuratively) of an always-conserved (omnipresent) circular-linear relationship. Explaining everything in Nature.

How do ‘virtual intelligence’ and ‘artificial reality’ intersect. Think: Foucault, Deleuze, Nietzsche. And, NFT.

We have to go all the way back to Euclid, and, actually, before, to figure out the basis for representation, and therefore, interpretation. Which is, pure and simple, the conservation of a circle. As articulated by Foucault, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. 'Pi' (in mathematics) is the background state for everything (a.k.a. 'mind').Providing the explanation for (and the current popularity, and, thus, the 'genius' behind) NFT (non fungible tokens). 'Reality' has, finally, caught up with the 'truth.'.

Hidden behind any 'one' is some 'other' 'one'... thus, the circle is conserved (circularity is the core dynamic in Nature) (producing a completely tokenized reality).

Abstract is a noun. Abstract is, also, a verb. Thus, abstraction. Explaining nouns. And verbs.

The universal system architecture of Nature can be summarized as: one zero, one one. This is because zero is, technically (and literally), circumference, and one is, technically (and literally), diameter. This means the algorithm that produces Nature (what humans label 'reality') is: if zero, then one (meaning, if one, then zero). Explaining the tokenzation of space (any matrix) (any lattice) (all vortices and edges) (if circumference, then diameter). Meaning, technically, you cannot use 'words' in any language (including the language of (...) mathematics) to describe 'reality.' You have to use the CIrcular Theory diagram (in this article). (shrink)

We have to go all the way back to Euclid, and, actually, before, to figure out the basis for representation, and therefore, interpretation. Which is, pure and simple, the conservation of a circle. As articulated by Foucault, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. 'Pi' (in mathematics) is the background state for everything (a.k.a. 'mind').Providing the explanation for (and the current popularity, and, thus, the 'genius' behind) NFT (non fungible tokens). 'Reality' has, finally, caught up with the 'truth.'.

The tokenization of a circle produces, what humans label, ‘the identity of one.’.

How it would have to happen. Forget ‘revolution.’.

Reality is the conservation of a circle. Producing tokenization. Representation. Identification. The reference.

Reality at any scale (a singularity of singularities) involves the conservation of a circle. This is because zero and one (modern) (yin and yang) (ancient) are, technically, and, thus 'realistically' (literally), circumference and diameter. This means we are, always, tokenizing space, explaining 'the matrix,' 'information,' 'information systems,' and algorithms (mathematics and technology). This is because, what humans label, 'mind' and 'matter,' like any X and X (X and Y) (X and X') articulate, and, thus, conserve an always-present (totally prescient) circular-linear (...) relationship. Also known as 'tokenization.' Conservation of the Circle. (shrink)

Cracking the ‘universal’ code: the tokenization of Nature. (Think: representation, abstraction, realization.) A universal blockchain.

One and One is One Explaining Unification and Unitization and Identity in General.

This presentation discusses a notion encountered across disciplines, and in different facets of human activity: autonomous activity. We engage it in an interdisciplinary way. We start by considering the reactions and behaviors of biological entities to biotechnological intervention. An attempt is made to characterize the degree of freedom of embryos & clones, which show openness to different outcomes when the epigenetic developmental landscape is factored in. We then consider the claim made in programming and artificial intelligence that automata could show (...) self-directed behavior as to the determination of their step-wise decisions on courses of action. This question remains largely open and calls for some important qualifications. We try to make sense of the presence of claims of freedom in agency, first in common sense, then by ascribing developmental plasticity in biology and biotechnology, and in the mapping of programmed systems in the presence of environmental cues and self-referenced circuits as well as environmental coupling. This is the occasion to recall attempts at working out a logical and methodological approach to the openness of concepts that are still to be found, and assess whether they can operate the structuring intelligibility of a yet undeveloped or underdeveloped field of study, where a “bisociation" and a unification of knowledge might be possible. (shrink)

In Spinoza’s metaphysics, we encounter many puzzling doctrines that appear to entangle metaphysical notions with cognitive, logical, and epistemic ones. According to him, a substance is that which can be conceived through itself and a mode is that which is conceived through another. Thus, metaphysical notions, substance and mode, are defined through a notion that is either cognitive or logical, being conceived through. He defines an attribute as that which an intellect perceives as constituting the essence of a substance. Intellectual (...) perception, something cognitive, is used to define an attribute, something metaphysical. And he claims that if something exists there is a reason why it exists and if something doesn’t exist there is also a reason why it doesn’t. Thus, a reason, something cognitive or epistemic, is necessary for existence or nonexistence. What are we to make of the intimate connections that Spinoza sees between metaphysical, cognitive, logical, and epistemic notions? Between being and reason? In this book, I argue for what might be called a realist interpretation: although Spinoza is confident that the order of being mirrors the order of reason, he believes that they are two orders, not one. There is inherence over and above conceptual dependence; there is causation in addition to causal explanation; the world has a nature that we can grasp and that our way of grasping it does not interpose an impenetrable conceptual veil between it and us. (shrink)

Many think that sentences about what metaphysically explains what are true iff there exist grounding relations. This suggests that sceptics about grounding should be error theorists about metaphysical explanation. We think there is a better option: a theory of metaphysical explanation which offers truth conditions for claims about what metaphysically explains what that are not couched in terms of grounding relations, but are instead couched in terms of, inter alia, psychological facts. We do not argue that our account is superior (...) to grounding-based accounts. Rather, we offer it to those already ill-disposed towards grounding. (shrink)

It is often assumed that, while ordinary actions are events, ‘negative actions’ are absences of events. I claim that a negative action is an ordinary, ‘positive’ event that plays a certain role. I argue that my approach can answer standard objections to the identity of negative actions and positive events.

Most answers to the mind-body problem are claims about the nature of mental properties and substances. But advocates of non-reductive physicalism have generally neglected the topic of the nature of substance, quickly nodding to the view that all substances are physical, while focusing their intellectual energy on understanding how mental properties relate to physical ones. Let us call the view that all substances are physical or are exhaustively composed of physical substances substance physicalism (SP). Herein, I argue that non-reductive physicalism (...) (NRP) cannot uphold substance physicalism and is thereby false. For NRP faces a mind problem: its commitment to property irreducibility prevents that which bears the mental properties—the mind, or on some views, the self or person—from being a physical thing. (shrink)

Nonreductive physicalists have a causal exclusion problem. Given certain theses all physicalists accept, including psychophysical supervenience and the causal closure of the physical realm, it is difficult to see how irreducible mental phenomena could make a causal difference to the world. The upshot, according to those who push the problem, is that we must embrace reductive physicalism. Only then is mental causation saved. -/- Grant the argument, at least provisionally. Here our focus is the conditional question: What form should one's (...) reductionism take if it is motivated in part by the exclusion problem? Must one be a type identity theorist, or are alternative reductive views available, as Jaegwon Kim has suggested more than once? (shrink)

The thesis that mental states are physical states enjoys widespread popularity. After the abandonment of typeidentity theories, however, this thesis has typically been framed in terms of state tokens. I argue that token states are a philosopher’s fiction, and that debates about the identity of mental and physical state tokens thus rest on a mistake.

The paper argues for four claims: (1) The problem of mental causation and the argument for its solution in terms of the identity of mental with physical causes are independent of the theory of causation one favours. (2) If one considers our experience of agency as described by folk psychology to be veridical, one is committed to an anti-Humean metaphysics of causation in terms of powers that establish necessary connections. The same goes for functional properties in general. (3) A metaphysics (...) of causation in terms of powers is compatible with physics. (4) If combined with the argument for mental causes being identical with physical causes, that metaphysics leads to a conservative reductionism. (shrink)

Functional reductionism concerning mental properties has recently been advocated by Jaegwon Kim in order to solve the problem of the 'causal exclusion' of the mental. Adopting a reductionist strategy first proposed by David Lewis, he regards psychological properties as being 'higher-order' properties functionally defined over 'lower-order' properties, which are causally efficacious. Though functional reductionism is compatible with the multiple realizability of psychological properties, it is blocked if psychological properties are subdivided or crosscut by neurophysiological properties. I argue that there is (...) recent evidence from cognitive neuroscience that shows that this is the case for the psychological property of fear. Though this may suggest that some psychological properties should be revised in order to conform to those of neurophysiology, the history of science demonstrates that this is not always the outcome, particularly with properties that play an important role in our folk theories and are central to human concerns. (shrink)

In a recent issue ofSophia, Jason A. Beyer introduced objections to the antitheist arguments that purport to show the inconsistencies between God’s attributes. In this short response I argue that Beyer’s objections are untenable.

The distinction between token and type physicalism is a familiar feature of discussion of psychophysical relations. Token physicalism, or ontological physicalism, is the view that every token, or particular, in the spatiotemporal world is a physical particular. It is contrasted with type physicalism, or property physicalism -- the view that every first-order type, or property, instantiated in the spatiotemporal world is a physical property. Token physicalism is commonly viewed as a clear thesis, strictly weaker than property physicalism, strictly stronger than (...) substance physicalism, and as a good statement on its own or in conjunction with other theses of minimal physicalism.[i] It is also generally simply assumed to be true, though Davidson has offered a famous argument for its truth, and some have argued against it. Many of those arguing against it are substance physicalists, indicating that they believe token physicalism to be a strictly stronger view.[ii]. (shrink)

Written with a student audience in mind, this article surveys the issues raises by the attempt to formulate, argue for, and explore the implications of a comprehensively physicalist view of the world.